The research methods that were used for data collection were observation, note taking, doc-umentation by photography, diarising and a workshop as Table 7 shows. Observation was to see and listen to stories about the subjects, such as culture and cultural objects, at museums and people’s homes. It was recorded by handwriting, typing and cameras. Note taking was to make records by writing to plan a workshop and art installations. Diarising was to note what happened and how the process went. Workshops were to organise and have participatory ac-tivities to make art installations and have community interacted.
Each method produced notes, photos, sketches and an art installation (Table 7). Smartphones were served as a handy tool to take pictures of environment and collected natural material as well as to translate languages in Finnish and English. Notebooks were used to make notes of reflections, plan for the workshop and sketch from books of kapiokirstu. Laptops were multi-functional and used when presenting ideas to the participants, diarising the process of the workshop and generating tables and figures. Cameras were prepared when visiting mu-seums and working in the workshop, and set on a tripod to take still pictures. Some of the art materials were collected from the environment by such art-making tools like scissors and knives by the facilitators and the participants to make the art installation and decorations for it. The main materials were birch branches, flowers, berries and hay. Crochet as a part of art materials were brought voluntarily by the participants for the decoration. Art-making tools were used for material collection and art-making, which included pens for visual analysis, cutting tools and threads to tie the decoration and connect the branches.
According to Ørngreen and Levinsen (2017), workshops are events planned in a limited period for specific target groups who share domains or agendas in common and they yield-ed various formats (pp. 71-72). It is conductyield-ed by those who have experiencyield-ed in the sharyield-ed area, where they manage the area to let participants connect each other well, engaged in the workshop and practice aimed skills. They both also expect such outcomes as the generation and the creation for innovation (p. 72). It is also stated by Lain (2017, p. 160) that workshops encourage “engagement” between participants and the workshop facilitators (as cited in Ahmed & Asraf, 2018, pp. 1504-1510) Ørngreen and Levinsen (2017) categorises the
purpos-Table 7. Research method, instruments and produced data
• Culture and cultural objects, kapiokirstu, in museums or private houses
• Environment of the site
• Art-making processes
• Discussion about the art instal-lation
es of workshops into three as follows. First, it serves as means which aim the achievement of the goals like gaining new knowledge from specific areas. Second, it is used as practice which examine the form of the workshop and the outcomes by participants in a certain domain.
Last, it is regarded as research methodology which aims to fulfill a research purpose for data production while participants achieve their goals (p. 72). Ørngreen and Levinsen (2017) also presents three approaches for designing the workshop (p. 72). The first is by using guidelines for workshop formats obtained in the related domains (p. 72). The second is by conceptual formats to direct activities and roles for the future (p. 72). For example, Lauttamäki (2014) states that it can make democratic decision making (p. 2). The third is by opening formats to make influences on them while the workshop develops and unpredictable challenges appear (Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017, p. 72).
Above all, the workshop conducted in this study are described as Table 8 shows.
The gathered data in this study (Table 7), such as notes, photos, sketches and the art installa-tion as the outcome of the workshop, were used to create a stakeholder map and a customer journey map and to design the art installation in the workshop with content analysis. Accord-ing to the book, Research design by Creswell (2009), there are four basic types of qualitative data presented: observations, interviews, documents and audio-visual materials (pp. 179-181) (Table 9). Observations are field notes where researchers record individual’s behaviors and activities. The position of the researcher can be different and categorised into four types: a complete participant, an observer as a participant, a participant as an observer, and a com-plete observer. Interviews can be conducted from one to groups of people, by face-to-face, telephone and in focus group to obtain participants’ views. In this study, there was no data
Table 8. Characteristics of the workshop Information / Option Period 16-17th August 2018 Place Pasmajärvi, Kolari, Finland
Targeted group Finnish residents in the study area
Outcome Art installation for an annual event in Pasmajärvi
Purpose Practice: to create an outcome to facilitate similar workshops (Ørn-green & Levinsen, 2017)
Approach Open format: to find pain points and reflect on the outline (Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017)
Table 9. Data collection type by method
Produced data Notes as Observations
Options Researcher as “participant as observer”
Produced data Photos as Audio-visual materials
Options Photos
Produced data Notes as Observations
Sketches as Audio-visual materials
Options Public source from Books
Private source from researchers’ notes Art objects
Produced data Notes as Documents
Options Private source
Produced data Installation as Audio-visual materials
Options Art objects
Observation
Documentation by photography
Note taking
Diarising
Workshop
obtained as Interviews. Documents include both public and private documents. They can be collected from newspaper to personal diaries and letters. Audio-visual materials include pho-tographs, art objects and films.